States face ever-increasing costs just to maintain essential services, but residents are typically unwilling to pay higher taxes to fund these services. Some states have begun to recognize gaming as a potential revenue source which can help generate funds for the state, thereby offsetting the need for increased taxes. For example, most states now sponsor lotteries or the like, the proceeds of which are typically used to fund educational or other programs. In addition, more and more states are legalizing, albeit under heavy regulation, certain other types of gaming, such as slot machines.
One of the first games which is typically legalized by states, especially for non-profit fundraising activities, is bingo. As described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,857,911 to Fioretti (“Fioretti”), the teachings of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety, traditional bingo is played with a card, or gaming board, which is typically a five-by-five numerical array, with the centermost location being blank, or “free”. Numbered balls, typically between 1 and 75, are placed in a hopper, and balls are chosen at random from the hopper. Players mark their bingo card as the numbers are drawn, and collectively the marks eventually begin to resemble various shapes. For example, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,398,645 to Yoseloff (“Yoseloff”), the teachings of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety, the shapes may include an “X”, a plus, a “T”, a horizontal line, a vertical line, or other alternative shapes. When the marks on a player's scorecard match a pre-defined pattern, the player has a “bingo” and wins the pot for that game.
Although typically associated with fundraisers for churches and other non-profit groups, bingo has become so popular that even some casinos have begun to offer bingo to their patrons. In fact, bingo has become especially popular at tribal casinos. Congress enacted IGRA to regulate gaming operations run by Indian tribes on Indian land. The Act's purpose is to “provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments”. 25 U.S.C. §2702(1). The IGRA defines class II gaming in relevant part as follows:                (i) the game of chance commonly known as bingo (whether or not electronic, computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection therewith)        (ii) which is played for prizes, including monetary prizes, with cards bearing numbers or other designations        (iii) in which the holder of the card covers such numbers or designations when objects, similarly numbered or designated are drawn or electronically determined, and        (iv) in which the game is won by the first person covering a previously designated arrangement of numbers or designations on such cards, including (if played in the same location) pull-tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo.        
Games that are not within the definition of class H games are class III. See 25 U.S.C. 2703(8). Congress excluded certain forms of gaming from the class II definition:
The term “Class II gaming” does not include:                i) any banking card games, including baccarat, chemind de fer, or blackjack(21), or        ii) electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machines of any kind.        
This vagueness, particularly with respect to “electronic or electromechanical facsimiles” created a conflict with another gambling statute, the Johnson Act. Congress' 1988 policy behind the IGRA—a civil regulatory statute—was to promote economic development and encourage tribal gaming within tribal jurisdictions by setting up a game classification scheme. However, Congress' policy behind the Johnson Act—a 1950's era criminal statute—was to criminally prohibit the use of “gambling devices.” The two statues support diametrically-opposed congressional policies and thus create inherent and irreconcilable conflicts when read together regarding “electronic technology” aids.” The Johnson Act is meant to restrict and criminally prohibit gambling. The IGRA is meant to encourage tribal economic development by promoting gambling.
The NIGC (National Indian Gaming Commission) adopted regulations in 1992 that applied the Johnson Act “gambling devices” definition to electronic equipment. Since then, the overwhelming majority of the district and appellate courts and the NIGC have found, however, that Congress intended for the IGRA to impliedly repeal the Johnson Act when considering class II gaming devices utilizing electronic technological aid equipment. In the preamble to the recently revised regulations, the NIGC recognized the hopeless circular reasoning found in its 1992 definitions of “electronic or electronic facsimiles.”
The NIGC administers IGRA and regulates tribal gaming. However, the NIGC shares enforcement responsibilities with DOJ. Jurisdiction over criminal violations is vested in the United States Department of Justice, which also assists the Commission by conducting civil litigation on its behalf in federal court.
The NIGC and the DOJ have differed at times on policy choices (and legal definitions) about what constitutes an IGRA class II verses class III electronic aid equipment and whether the Johnson Act should apply to such equipment.
The NIGC's regulations define class II gaming to include:                (A) bingo or lotto (whether or not electronic, computer or other technologic aids are used) when players:                    a. Play for prizes with cards bearing numbers or other designations;            b. Cover numbers or designations when objects, similarly numbered or designated, are drawn or electronically determined; and            c. Win the game by being the first person to cover a designated pattern on such card;                        (B) If played in the same location as bingo, lotto, pull-tabs, punch boards, tip jars, instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo.        
IGRA provides that class II games may utilize “electronic, computer, or other technologic aids” 25 U.S.C. 2703(7). The NIGC's recently revised final regulations define a technologic aid as follows:                (C) Electronic, computer or other technologic aid means any machine or device that:                    a. Assists a player or the playing of a game;            b. Is not an electronic or electromechanical facsimile, and            c. Is operated in accordance with applicable Federal communications law.                        (D) Electronic, computer, or other technologic aids include, but are not limited to machines or devices that:                    a. Broaden the participation levels in a common game;            b. Facilitate communication between and among gaming sites; or            c. Allow a player to play a game with or against other players rather than with or against a machine.                        (E) Examples of electronic, computer or other technologic aids include pull-tab dispensers and/or readers, telephones, cables, televisions, screens, satellites, bingo blowers, electronic player stations or electronic cards for participants in bingo games.        
The NIGC also revised the definition of “electronic or electromechanical facsimile” in its final published rule:
502.8 Electronic or Electromechanical Facsimile
Electronic or electromechanical facsimile means a game played in an electronic or electromechanical format that replicates a game of chance by incorporating all of the characteristics of the game, except when, for bingo, lotto, or other games similar to bingo the electronic or electromechanical format broadens participation by allowing multiple players to play with or against each other rather than with or against a machine.
502.9 Other Games Similar to Bingo.
Other games similar to bingo means any game played in the same location as bingo (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(a)(i)) constituting a variant on the game of bingo, provided that such a game is not house banked and permits players to compete against each other for a common prize or prizes.
Bingo's increasing popularity has spurred the development of a variety of technological advancements. By way of example, bingo-like slot machines, such as those taught by Yoseloff and U.S. Pat. No. 5,935,002 to Falciglia, the teachings of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety, have been suggested. Still others have designed televised and Internet-based bingo games, such as those taught by U.S. Pat. No. 5,951,396 to Tawil; U.S. Pat. No. 6,012,984 to Roseman; U.S. Pat. No. 6,186,892 to Frank et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 6,280,325 to Fisk; U.S. Pat. No. 6,306,038 to Graves et al.; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,354,941 to Miller et al.; the teachings of each of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.
As bingo's popularity continues to increase, bingo halls, casinos, and other gaming halls are increasingly interested in drawing players to, and retaining players already in, a particular gaming hall. One means some gaming halls, and especially tribal casinos, are using to attract and retain players are pull-tab games. Pull-tab games are typically implemented as two-ply laminated paper containing one or more “pull-tabs” comprised of a perforated tab of paper. When peeled back, the pull-tab reveals symbols or numbers related to a game theme. Examples of traditional pull-tab games include U.S. Pat. No. 3,900,219 to D'Amato et al.; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,033,611, to Johnsen.
Pull-tab games typically feature a limited number of play tickets for a given deal or set (e.g., 100 individual tickets in a set or deal). The play tickets are individually sold to players for a fee. A player pulls one or more tabs on the ticket to determine if the player is a winner. Although typically designed as instant-win games, some pull-tab games provide qualifying symbols for entry into one or more award level rounds associated with the particular deal set. In such an embodiment, once all tickets for a given deal set are sold, those players holding a ticket eligible for the award level round are entered into a secondary game. Typically, this involves the game operator opening a special pull-tab card to reveal the award level round winners. These multi-level games are typically implemented with progressive jackpots to further enhance excitement. U.S. Pat. No. 6,390,916 to Brown discloses a seal card game scheme which includes a plan for multiple levels of non-progressive play. The Brown game card scheme awards a master case award to a winning ticket not among the deal winners. According to Brown, the non-progressive scheme retains the interest of players throughout the deals because everyone retains a chance of winning the case award.
Pull-tab games can help boost gaming hall revenues by helping attract and retain players. However, the paper pull-tab games of the prior art and are not convenient, efficient, or interactive, thus limiting their attractiveness to players, and consequently bingo halls, casinos, and other gaming halls.
The desire to further increase gaming hall revenues has lead to the development of electronic systems for rolling out instant-win, pull-tab game systems, such as those taught in U.S. Pat. No. 5,324,035, to Morris; U.S. Pat. No. 5,871,398 to Schneier et al.; and Published U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0098882 to Lind et al., the teachings of each of which an incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. These game systems allow players to play electronic versions of pull-tab games at specially programmed player terminals. Such terminals can be handheld units, such as the TED and Traveler lines of handheld gaming units manufactured by GameTech International, Inc., the assignee hereof, or fixed base station units, thereby allowing such game systems to be implemented in a wide variety of environments. Although the Lind, Schneier, and Morris game systems represent a progression in the art over paper pull-tab distribution devices such as that taught in U.S. Pat. No. 5,348,299, to Clapper et al., the teachings of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety, the game systems still have limitations. For example, although the game systems allow a variety of pull-tab based games to be played, the systems do not allow players to participate in alternative types of games, or to simultaneously play a variety of games of differing types.
In addition, the technological advances represented by the various references can have a down-side. As recently experienced when a horse race betting system designed by Autotote, Inc. of Wilmington, Del., was compromised, computerized gaming systems can be alluring targets for those seeking to get rich illegally. Part of the allure of computerized gaming systems is that it can be harder to detect when a system has been compromised and to trace all of the parties involved than with traditional game systems. Some in the prior art have attempted to implement more secure gaming systems. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,149,522, to Alcorn et al., teaches a method of authenticating game datasets in an electronic casino gaming system.